WESTERN CARRIERS Vs. TAMIL NADU INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four appeals arise out of one common order passed by the District Forum, Madras North in four O. Ps. viz. , O. P. Nos.12/97,13/97,120/97 and 121 /97. In these circumstances, all the appeals can be disposed of in one common order.

(2.) In all the O. Ps. the two complainants as well as the opposite party are the same. In all the O. Ps. the 1st complainant is the Tamil Nadu Industrial Enterprises and the 2nd complainant is the New India Assurance Company Limited. The opposite party is M/s. Western Carriers. In all the O. Ps. , the case of the complainants is that certain consignments were entrusted to the opposite party by M/s. Bharat Aluminium Company Limited, Korba, Bilaspur, Madhya Pradesh, to be carried and delivered at Madras to the consignee the 1st complainant. There was short delivery in respect of two of the consignments and in other two consignments the goods were damaged. In respect of short delivery, O. P. Nos.12/97 and 13/97 were filed and in respect of damaged delivery O. P. Nos.120/97 and 121/97 were filed. According to the complainants, the short delivery and the damage to the goods were due to the fault of the opposite party and that amounted to deficiency in service on their part. The further case of the complainants is that the opposite party has admitted the short delivery and damage to the goods. The complainants also contended that a Surveyor had assessed the value of the damage and the shortage and the opposite party issued a damage certificate Ex. A4. According to the complainants, the opposite party had not settled the claim made by the 1st complainant the consignee. The 2nd complainant Insurance Company had settled the claim of the 1st complainant and the 1st complainant, in turn, executed a letter of subrogation and special power of attorney in favour of the 2nd complainant. On these grounds the complaints were filed for compensation and costs.

(3.) The opposite party contended that the short delivery and damage were due to the reasons beyond their control and the delivery certificate was issued to the 1st complainant to facilitate them to claim from the 2nd complainant. It was further contended that no consideration was paid by the 1st complainant to the opposite party. In these circumstances the opposite party was not liable to pay any amount to the complainants.